Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Newsflash: Under the rubric of "free trade," your party is negotiating treaties to weaken things like environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. If you don't like this, you have a problem with CAFTA.
|
Newsflash: "My party" is doing nothing of the sort. The people in your party a bitching because environmental protections and labour stuff were not added to the treat. The appropriate word is added. They are trying to use this free trade agreement to pursue another agenda. Again - like I said this is a free trade agreement.
I may not like the test ban tready because it does not also include banning mines. But that doesn't make the test ban treaty bad.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the authors' problem is with the specific form, not with the concept of intellectual property..
|
Well it would be nice if he explained it. Unlike you, just because this guy says so is not enough for me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's protectionism for (American) textiles.
|
While that may be true, it still reduced the protection of American textiles. So what is there is not the best, but it is a lot better than the restriction we have now - is it not?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's their problem, eh? Are you in favor of forcing American workers to compete with workers in other countries who lack even the most basic enforceable labor standards? That's not a level playing field.
|
You are going to force these countrys to adopt all our OSIA safety regulations? These countrys are a lot less developed so they can't afford to pay their workers the same or have the same regulation requirements. It would be nice if their economies grew to the point where they could be on par with our workers, but, of course, it is going to take them longer to get there if the free trade act is not implemented.
This is just a smoke screen. This is a free trade agreement. We just need to cut down the trade barriers. There is no way to make the playing field even. Even if those these disparities exist the free trade agreement is better for all countrys involved. That is the basic theory of free trade. If you are against free trade, just say it instead of hiding behind all this worker and environmental stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Whatever.
|
Interesting - that is the same argument my seven year old niece uses.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's policy. Not fashionable in comtemporary GOP circles. You guys usually just let the lobbyists do it.
|
No idea what this means.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's says "the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements." That's CAFTA. Do you like the actual deal, or your fuzzy conception of it.
|
My understanding is that this has nothing to do with the treaty. With or without the treaty the administration is tightening the eligibility requirements. Why they are doing this I don't know. I am not going to make assumptions. But this is a separate issue from free trade and CAFTA.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I think points 1-6 were establishing that it's not a good deal, and then 7 suggests why.
|
Yes letting congressman who are not really for free trade anyway, try and attach "labor protection amendments" is really going to help. Thats like having having Henry Hyde get his say on a contraceptive bill. Not really productive.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If DeLong is against it, I trust his judgment. Not every treaty is good just because someone slapped a "Free Trade" label on it.
|
That is nice you trust him. Good for you and him. Some treaties are not really free trade treaties that are called them but this one is. This one does exactly what free trade treaties are supposed to do . It reduces tariffs and subsidies. The more you ad "Labour protections" and "environmental protections" it becomes less of a free trade treaty and more of us telling other countrys how they should treat labour and the environment. I believe that reducing tariffs and subsidies in this country is good. I also believe that other countrys benefit from this to. I would also like to see other countrys develop better labour standards and environmental standards but am not willing to use free trade agreements as leverage to get these governments to adopt what we believe are the environmental and trade standards they should adopt. In addition, these sort of "riders" when attached to free trade bills are often smoke screens for protectionism. That is why it is better to separate these issues from the free trade agreements and let the agreements do what they are defined to do - increase free trade.
